ArticleJournal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO2024
Asymmetry in the Perception of Electrical Chirps Presented to Cochlear Implant Listeners.
Article in Journal of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology : JARO, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Limitations on Temporal Processing by Cochlear Implant Users: A Compilation of Viewpoints.Trends in hearingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough a broadband acoustic click is physically the shortest duration sound we can hear, its peripheral neural representation is not as short because of cochlear filtering. The traveling wave imposes frequency-dependent delays to the sound waveform so that in response to a click, apical nerve fibers, coding for low frequencies, are excited several milliseconds after basal fibers, coding for high frequencies. Nevertheless, a click sounds like a click and these across-fiber delays are not perceived. This suggests that they may be compensated by the central auditory system, rendering our perception consistent with the external world. This explanation is difficult to evaluate in normal-hearing listeners because the contributions of peripheral and central auditory processing cannot easily be disentangled. Here, we test this hypothesis in cochlear implant listeners for whom cochlear mechanics is bypassed.
methodEight cochlear implant users ranked in perceived duration 12 electrical chirps of various physical durations and spanning the cochlea in the apex-to-base or base-to-apex direction (Exp. 1). Late-latency cortical potentials were also recorded in response to a subset of these chirps (Exp. 2).
resultsWe show that an electrical chirp spanning the cochlea from base-to-apex is perceived as shorter than the same chirp spanning the cochlea in the opposite direction despite having the same physical duration. Cortical potentials also provide neural correlates of this asymmetry in perception.
conclusionThese results demonstrate that the central auditory system processes frequency sweeps differently depending on the direction of the frequency change and that this processing difference is not simply the result of peripheral filtering.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.